Court No. - 7
1. Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 95 of 2018 Applicant :- The Commissioner,Commercial Tax Opposite Party :- S/S A.O.V. Exports Pvt. Ltd.
Counsel for Applicant :- Bipin Kumar Pandey
2. Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 96 of 2018 Applicant :- The Commissioner,Commercial Tax Opposite Party :- S/S A.O.V. Exports Pvt. Ltd.
Counsel for Applicant :- Bipin Kumar Pandey
3. Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 97 of 2018 Applicant :- The Commissioner,Commercial Tax Opposite Party :- S/S A.O.V. Exports Pvt. Ltd.
Counsel for Applicant :- Bipin Kumar Pandey
4. Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 98 of 2018 Applicant :- The Commissioner,Commercial Tax Opposite Party :- S/S A.O.V. Exports Pvt. Ltd.
Counsel for Applicant :- Bipin Kumar Pandey
5. Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 99 of 2018 Applicant :- The Commissioner,Commercial Tax Opposite Party :- S/S A.O.V. Exports Pvt. Ltd.
Counsel for Applicant :- Bipin Kumar Pandey
6. Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 100 of 2018 Applicant :- The Commissioner,Commercial Tax Opposite Party :- S/S A.O.V. Exports Pvt. Ltd.
Counsel for Applicant :- Bipin Kumar Pandey
7. Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 101 of 2018 Applicant :- The Commissioner,Commercial Tax Opposite Party :- S/S A.O.V. Exports Pvt.Ltd.
Counsel for Applicant :- Bipin Kumar Pandey
8. Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 102 of 2018 Applicant :- The Commissioner,Commercial Tax Opposite Party :- S/S A.O.V. Exports Pvt. Ltd.
Counsel for Applicant :- Bipin Kumar Pandey
9. Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 103 of 2018 Applicant :- The Commissioner,Commercial Tax Opposite Party :- S/S A.O.V. Exports Pvt. Ltd.
Counsel for Applicant :- Bipin Kumar Pandey
10. Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 104 of 2018 Applicant :- The Commissioner.Commercial Tax Opposite Party :- S/S A.O.V. Exports Pvt. Ltd.
Counsel for Applicant :- Bipin Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Heard Sri B.K. Pandey, learned standing counsel for the revisionist/Department.
Cause shown for delay in filing the revisions are sufficient, therefore, the delay is condoned. The delay condonation applications are allowed. Exemption Applications are also disposed of.
Office is directed to give regular number to the revisions.
All the above noted revisions arise from the common order of the Tribunal dated 29.11.2017 in Second Appeal Nos.163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171 and 172 all of 2014, arising from provisional assessment orders for the months April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December 2012 (U.P.) and December 2012 (Central). The common question involved before the Tribunal in all these appeals was whether Meat Bone Meal (for short “MBM”) is a poultry feed or a raw material for manufacture of poultry feed? The Assessing Authority levied the tax on the sales of the aforesaid commodity holding it to be an unclassified items. The case of the assessee was that it is a poultry feed which is a classified item. The assessee filed First Appeals against the Provisional Assessment Orders, which were dismissed by the First Appellate Authority. The assessee preferred aforesaid Second Appeals before the Member Commercial Tax Tribunal, Kanpur, Bench 4 – Kanpur, which have been dismissed by the impugned order on the ground that the cases are now ready for the final assessment, therefore, the final assessment order may be passed. The Tribunal has further observed that the Assessing Authority/the First Appellate Authority shall take decision in the matters pending before them, if any, in the light of the order passed by Ghaziabad Bench of the Tribunal in Second Appeal Nos.334 of 2016 and 335 of 2016 (C.C.T. U.P. Lucknow Vs. Frigorifico Allana Ltd. Ghaziabad).
Aggrieved with the observation made by the Tribunal as aforementioned, the revisionist has filed the present revisisions In paragraph 9 of the revision, the revisionist has stated, as under:
“That in the present case the assessing authority has levied the tax on the sale of Meat Bone Mean. Against which the dealer has preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority which has been allowed. Against the order passed by the first appellate authority the department has preferred an appeal before the Commercial Tax Tribunal recently dated 23.5.2018 for the Assessment Year 2011-12 and 2012-13. The said appeal before Commercial Tax Tribunal is pending for consideration.”
Sri B.K. Pandey, learned standing counsel states that the final Assessment Orders for the Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13, in respect of the respondent - assessee were passed by the Assessing Authority during pendency of the Second Appeal. Thus, the provisional Assessment Orders stood eclipsed. The aforesaid final assessment orders were challenged by the assessee before the First Appellate Authority and the appeals were allowed. The department has filed second appeals before the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Kanpur on 23.5.2018, challenging the order of the First Appellate Authority, which are pending. He further states that apprehension of the Department is that the Tribunal may treat its observation in the impugned order dated 29.11.2017 to be binding and for this reason the present revisions have been filed.
I find no substance in the submissions of learned standing counsel.
Inasmuch as the observation of the Tribunal in the impugned order was only with respect to the assessment proceedings or first appeal, if any, pending before the authority and not with respect to a Second Appeal pending before it. For ready reference the observation made by the Tribunal in the operative portion of the impugned order is reproduced below:
“okf.kT;dj vf/kdj.k xkft;kckn dh ;qxy ihB }kjk fn;s x;s mDr fu.kZ; ds vkyksP; esa djfu/kkZj.k vf/kdkjh@izFke vihyh; vf/kdkjh ds le{k orZeku izdj.k es vxzsrj dk;Zokgh ;fn dksbZ gks] rks og lEiUu fd;s tkus gsrq funZsf'kr fd;k tkrk gSA ”
In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any merit in these revisions. No question of law is involved. Therefore, all the revisions are dismissed. However, it is made clear that the Tribunal shall decide the pending departmental appeals, if any, in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 31.5.2018/vkg Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Delay condonation applications is allowed.
For orders, see order of date passed in SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 95 of 2018.
Order Date :- 31.5.2018/vkg
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Exemption Applications is disposed of.
For orders, see order of date passed in SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 95 of 2018.
Order Date :- 31.5.2018/vkg